GeoTools Project Status - Revision history

Jive at 03:02, 9 July 2008

2008-07-09T03:02:33Z

Wiki-Camerons: /* Code Copyright Review */

2008-07-08T12:25:04Z

Code Copyright Review

Jive at 10:36, 8 July 2008

2008-07-08T10:36:34Z

Jive: /* Code Copyright Review */

2008-07-08T08:36:46Z

Code Copyright Review

Jive: /* Code Copyright Review */

2008-07-08T08:36:06Z

Code Copyright Review

Jive: /* Foundation Membership */

2008-07-08T08:33:26Z

Foundation Membership

Jive: /* Infrastructure Transition */

2008-07-08T08:31:32Z

Infrastructure Transition

Wiki-Camerons: /* Basics */

2008-07-07T20:56:20Z

Basics

Arnulf: /* Basics */ linked to user page

2007-05-09T21:51:29Z

Basics: linked to user page

Neteler: Category:Incubation

2006-08-21T12:04:04Z

Category:Incubation

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ; Has the project been approved for incubation by the OSGeo board?
 : Yes
 ; Has an Incubation committee member been assigned as Mentor?
@@ Line 16: / Line 18: @@
 We have several web pages:
-   * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Home
+* http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Home
-   * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTDOC/Home
+* http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTDOC/Home
-   * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/Home
+* http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/Home
-   * http://javadoc.geotools.fr/
+* http://javadoc.geotools.fr/
-   * http://maven.geotools.fr/reports/
+* http://maven.geotools.fr/reports/ (this is the content that could move to an osgeo server)
 ; Is the OSGeo bug tracker being used for the project?
 : No it is not, once again we have an existing bug tracker Jira which allows for collaboration with several other projects
-    * http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT
+* http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT
 ; Is the OSGeo mailing list manager being used for the project?
 : Existing mailing list and archives are hosted by SF
-    * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Mailing+Lists
+* http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Mailing+Lists
 ; Is the OSGeo SVN or CVS system being used for the project?
 : Not at this time, moving our SVN would be of interest.
-    * http://svn.geotools.org/
+* http://svn.geotools.org/
 ; Are binary and source downloads available from the OSGeo download area?
 : Binary, Source and Javadoc downloads are located on source forge. Binary and source downloads are also available in a maven repository (for live builds).
 * https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4091&package_id=95639
-    * https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4091&package_id=95639
+* http://lists.refractions.net/m2/org/geotools/
 The maven repository is also mirrored for Europe.
@@ Line 61: / Line 62: @@
 ; How many active developers are there?  Are they from multiple organizations?
-: There are around 10 developers working on geotools as part of their day job, the expanded list goes up to around 30 with commit access. The important part is the number of responsible module maintainers.  While the project is made up of individuals (who happen to work for organizations such as Penn State University, Refractions Reserach, The Open Planning Project, IBM, Oracle, Google others...)
+: There are around 10 developers working on geotools as part of their day job, the expanded list goes up to around 30 with commit access. The important part is the number of responsible module maintainers.  While the project is made up of individuals (who happen to work for organizations such as Penn State University, Refractions Research, The Open Planning Project, IBM, Oracle, Google others...)
 == Foundation Membership ==
@@ Line 74: / Line 75: @@
 ; Has a [[Code Provenance Review]] document been prepared for the project?
-: Jody Garnett has gone through each module and produced a review.txt file listing issues for the Module Maintainers to consider. The [[GeoTools Provenance Review]] page contains links to this information.
+: Jody Garnett has gone through each module and produced a review.txt file listing issues for the Module Maintainers to consider in 2006. Adrian Custer repeated this task in 2008 forming the final [[GeoTools Provenance Review]] page contains review.atp processed into the [http://maven.geotools.fr/reports/ maven.geotools.gr] website.
-   * [http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review GeoTools Provenance Review] (GeoTools wiki)
+* [http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review GeoTools Provenance Review] (GeoTools wiki)
 ; Have issues raised in the provenance review been adequately addressed?
-: The most serious issues have been addressed: we have removed ArcSDE support for a year while stub jars were created, Frank has helped address the concern of EPSG derrived data products, and we have had discussion on the integration of public domain code with our LGPL license requirements.
+: The most serious issues were handled with in a decisive and immediate manner:
-    * [http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review#GeoToolsProvenanceReview-KnownIssues Known Issues]
+* We removed ArcSDE and Oracle support from the library due to difficulties distribution the jars on which this functionality depended. In addition we shut off prior downloads of the library that contained this work. This functionality was restored after "stub jars" were created by hand (these jars are non functional; operating similar to a *C* header file allowing code to be compiled but not executed).
 == Have Contributor Agreements been Recieved ==
 Yes, see [[Contributor_Agreements_Received]].
 [[Category:Incubation]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 8 July 2008
Line 82:		Line 82:

	* [http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review#GeoToolsProvenanceReview-KnownIssues Known Issues]		* [http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review#GeoToolsProvenanceReview-KnownIssues Known Issues]
		+
		+	== Have Contributor Agreements been Recieved ==
		+	Yes, see [[Contributor_Agreements_Received]].

	[[Category:Incubation]]		[[Category:Incubation]]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 We have several web pages:
-http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Home
+   * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Home
-http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTDOC/Home
+   * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTDOC/Home
-http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/Home
+   * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/Home
-http://javadoc.geotools.fr/
+   * http://javadoc.geotools.fr/
 ; Is the OSGeo bug tracker being used for the project?
 : No it is not, once again we have an existing bug tracker Jira which allows for collaboration with several other projects
 http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT
 ; Is the OSGeo mailing list manager being used for the project?
 : Existing mailing list and archives are hosted by SF
-http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Mailing+Lists
+    * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Mailing+Lists
 ; Is the OSGeo SVN or CVS system being used for the project?
 : Not at this time, moving our SVN would be of interest.
-http://svn.geotools.org/
+    * http://svn.geotools.org/
 ; Are binary and source downloads available from the OSGeo download area?
-: Binary, Source and Javadoc downloads are located on source forge
+: Binary, Source and Javadoc downloads are located on source forge. Binary and source downloads are also available in a maven repository (for live builds).
-Binary and source downloads are also available in a maven repository
+    * https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4091&package_id=95639
+    * http://lists.refractions.net/m2/org/geotools/
 The maven repository is also mirrored for Europe.
@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 : Jody Garnett has gone through each module and produced a review.txt file listing issues for the Module Maintainers to consider. The [[GeoTools Provenance Review]] page contains links to this information.
-[[GeoTools Provenance Review]]
+   * [http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review GeoTools Provenance Review] (GeoTools wiki)
 ; Have issues raised in the provenance review been adequately addressed?
-: The most serious issues have been addressed: we have removed ArcSDE support from the build pending the creation of stub jars, Frank has helped address the concern of EPSG derrived data products, and we have had discussion on the integration of public domain code with our LGPL license requirements.
+: The most serious issues have been addressed: we have removed ArcSDE support for a year while stub jars were created, Frank has helped address the concern of EPSG derrived data products, and we have had discussion on the integration of public domain code with our LGPL license requirements.
-[http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review#GeoToolsProvenanceReview-KnownIssues Known Issues]
+    * [http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review#GeoToolsProvenanceReview-KnownIssues Known Issues]
 [[Category:Incubation]]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 ; Has a [[Code Provenance Review]] document been prepared for the project?
 : Jody Garnett has gone through each module and produced a review.txt file listing issues for the Module Maintainers to consider. The [[GeoTools Provenance Review]] page contains links to this information.
 [[GeoTools Provenance Review]]
 [[http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review GeoTools Provenance Review]] (GeoTools wiki)
 ; Have issues raised in the provenance review been adequately addressed?
 : The most serious issues have been addressed: we have removed ArcSDE support from the build pending the creation of stub jars, Frank has helped address the concern of EPSG derrived data products, and we have had discussion on the integration of public domain code with our LGPL license requirements.
-[[http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review#GeoToolsProvenanceReview-KnownIssues Known Issues]
 [[Category:Incubation]]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 ; Has a [[Code Provenance Review]] document been prepared for the project?
 : Jody Garnett has gone through each module and produced a review.txt file listing issues for the Module Maintainers to consider. The [[GeoTools Provenance Review]] page contains links to this information.
 ; Have issues raised in the provenance review been adequately addressed?
-: The most serious issues have been addressed: we have removed ArcSDE support from the build pending the creation of stub jars, Frank has helped address the concern of EPSG derrived data products, and we have had discussion on the intergration of public domain code with our LGPL license requirements.
+: The most serious issues have been addressed: we have removed ArcSDE support from the build pending the creation of stub jars, Frank has helped address the concern of EPSG derrived data products, and we have had discussion on the integration of public domain code with our LGPL license requirements.
-: We have two remaining issues of note, use of WKB in PostGIS, and the creation of the sub jar so we can resume ArcSDE support.
+[[http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review#GeoToolsProvenanceReview-KnownIssues Known Issues]
 [[Category:Incubation]]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 ; Have project documents been updated to reflect membership in the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the foundation?
-: The home page has, but the formal developers guide will be updated as part of the incubation process (especially with respect to any changes in project procedures).
+: The home page has, and the formal developers guide has been updated to reflect new procedures (to reflect code contribution requirements)
 ; Has an effort been made to brand the project web site with OSGeo foundation web styling and branding marks?
-: We will have the same look and feel but are concerned with some of the limitations
+: We are waiting until we have completed the incubation process
 == Code Copyright Review ==

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ; Has an Incubation committee member been assigned as Mentor?
-: Yes, [[User:Warmerda | Frank Warmerdam]] is the assigned mentor.
+: Yes, [[User:Warmerda | Frank Warmerdam]] was the assigned mentor, later replaced by [[User:camerons | Cameron Shorter]].
 == Infrastructure Transition ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 21 August 2006
Line 60:		Line 60:
	: The most serious issues have been addressed: we have removed ArcSDE support from the build pending the creation of stub jars, Frank has helped address the concern of EPSG derrived data products, and we have had discussion on the intergration of public domain code with our LGPL license requirements.		: The most serious issues have been addressed: we have removed ArcSDE support from the build pending the creation of stub jars, Frank has helped address the concern of EPSG derrived data products, and we have had discussion on the intergration of public domain code with our LGPL license requirements.
	: We have two remaining issues of note, use of WKB in PostGIS, and the creation of the sub jar so we can resume ArcSDE support.		: We have two remaining issues of note, use of WKB in PostGIS, and the creation of the sub jar so we can resume ArcSDE support.
		+
		+	[[Category:Incubation]]